About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
of public safety exception before you give him his miranda rights, all that talk of naming him as an enemy combatant, all of that is moot right now. they've gone forward with the official proceedings. >> well, they may have used the public safety exception, and apparently they were using it to question him, and he responded in some way given his medical condition. but certainly now that he has a lawyer, that period, however long it was, is over. and you're right, the enemy combatant thing was a nonstarter from the never going to happen. this is a criminal case in federal court in massachusetts, and that's where it will stay until it's resolved one way or another. >> it's going to take a while. thanks very much, jeffrey. much more on what's going on in this boston investigation coming up here in "the situation room" 0. >>> also, another terror plot released today, new information. canadian authorities announcing the arrest of two men believed to be part of a terror plot to attack a passenger train that may have been heading towards the united states, the plot said to have an alleged connect
miranda rights? >> yes, that's my view. >> so that changes nothing in view of their ability to interrogate? >> what it changes is their ability to question him and use any statement that he makes. that they're not allowed to do. >> he is apparently claiming -- >> they don't need that in this case. they got a mountain of evidence against this guy. >> right. they have testified it seems against him and his brother for the act they perpetrated. >> correct. >> what they will i'm sure be extremely curious to find out if they can is are they part of a wider group of either like-minded individuals who have been coordinating themselves reading stuff on the internet, videos and so on, which apparently is what he's claiming. whether they're attached to anybody in chechnya, for example, or islamic fundamentalist nature, et cetera, et cetera, how far can you go in terms of eliciting that information from somebody like him in his position once he's had his miranda rights read to him as he now has? >> my view is you can go as far as you think it's productive to go. however, i don't think it's terribly p
administration has agreed to delay a reading of his miranda rights under a public safety exemption, secretary of defense chuck hagel has not seen evidence to link the bombings to terror groups. scrutiny turns to the fbi who reportedly questioned the older brother tamerlan in 2011 at the request of a foreign government. this is so interesting. of russia. the fbi told the a.p. despite interviewing him and relatives they did not find any activity. the agency dropped the ball. richard, i wonder if there is going to be a lot of questions and maybe even hearings out of this or what comes to mind just knowing those basic facts? >> there probably will be hearings of the fbi whether it learned more or could have done more. critics say that is monday morning quarterbacking. it ought to be about what we were talking about, what can we do to prevent or identify young people who are radicalized and how did we respond and how what did we learn about lockdowns. as the military would say it ought not to just focus on fbi. it's much bigger and much broader. we have to learn a lot from this. the reason is this
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
was provided before or after that judge/magistrate was there and r read him his miranda rights? the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney? >> sources have indicated to us that was part of a questioning that they did under the -- fbi agent does under a national security exemption, before he was assigned counsel. they had the ability in the interest of public safety exception to be able to ask questions, were there additional coconspirators, where and were there additional explosives. the source of things you want to know immediately in order to protect the public. presumably base wanted on what we are hearing, those are the questions they asked and the kinds of responses prior to the first appearance yesterday. >> that would fit in with the public safety exception in the there a in providing the miranda rights to this criminal defendant as he now is, charges have been read to him. fran, we'll stay in close touch with you, fran townsend. much more from boston in just a moment. other news that we're watching as well. the fbi, back in washington, up on capitol hill, lawmake
a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and they don't need to hide behind enemy combatant? >> i think that is certainly part of it. it does look like an overwhelming body of evidence. more than that, they thought they could get the immediate information they needed by the miranda exception, the public safety exception so they could make sure the public was safe. there accident seem to be an constitution aal basis to treat someone that commits a crime like this on our soil. the supreme court has upheld treating an american, the american taliban hamdi captured in afghanis
was given his miranda rights? >> we don't know as of yet. he has been read his miranda rights. but we don't know if this information came before or after. as you know there was a public safety exemption before he was read his miranda rights. so there was time when law enforcement had the opportunity to talk to him before he had quote/unquote lawyered up. but we don't know yet whether or not this information came before he said he understood his rights, or after. >> all right, jake tapper, terrific reporting. great to have you here this morning. >> thanks, john. >> don't miss "the lead" every day at 4:00. we're also learning more this morning about -- we're learning more this morning about criminal complaints against tsarnaev detailing step by step how the deadly attack on the boston marathon unfolded. our coverage continues this morning with miguel marquez outside best israel deaconess medical center right here in boston. good morning, miguel. >> good morning, john. this is the criminal complaint that contains what we expect are the first charges. we'll see many more against mr. tsarnaev.
. just to confirm, this -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has not yet been read his miranda rights, correct? >> i have to say i don't know. because there was an initial appearance today, that's why this complaint is out. the circuit executive, the administrator of this area, has put out a statement saying there was an initial appearance before a magistrate judge. that is as far as i understand it an arraignment. i have never heard of an arraignment without an attorney present. they didn't mention an attorney present. if an attorney is present, the attorney will simply say to the client, you -- don't answer questions. at that point, the attorney is the person the prosecutor is supposed to deal with. i have to say, there is information out there that we don't have. whether an attorney was present, whether this was an actual arraignment, i think we just need to hold off on that until we get more information. >> we're holding off. still so early this all happened. >> before we let deb feyerick go and chase down that lead she was referring to, deb, i was wondering, is there anything else that stands out in
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8